I made a missile test chart!

[il_corleone]

Hello! after seing some folks wondering about the Aim-7M and the R-27R against the 530D, so I made this chart

 

Zeus67 said "I seriously doubt that the real Super 530D will get better numbers than that.(Against the 67% H/R of Aim7 in Desert Storm) It can probably go to 40% or 45% but still that means that you need to fire at least 2 to shoot down a target. Something that our tests in DCS prove" So maybe is not really incorrect this way or atleast far away, in my opinion, missiles should have a 65% at least Hit ratio at 8km and 40% at 15km, being 30 the 0-10% of H/R

 

Conditions:

Day, 1 June 12:00:00 PM

Summer 20º Degrees

760 QNH

Both aircraft 800km/h (True Speed) 2000m

HEAD ON

Offline

Ver 1.5.2

 

Target Mig29A

Planes: Aim7 F15C

R-27R Mig29G

 

 

H/R: Hit Ratio

K/R: Kill Ratio

F/T: Flight time of hit missiles/ Flight time of missed missiles

 

* The 95% percent of the missiles were wasted by chaff

* One Aim7 was out of energy at 15km mark

*At 7km-5km the chaff affected the missiles and the 100% was wasted (russian) 95% (Americans)

* At 8km I don`t know if the chaff affected so bad to the missiles but I think it also did, closer, but it did

*The Mig29 was triying to outmaneuver the missile by the moment of launch, making a sharp turn to the left and lowering his alttitude, al while launching chaff

 

I noticed the amazing fact that at the mark of 8km, ONLY 8, just 50% of the missiles made it to the target, while the others were wasted by chaff, at the 7km mark, most of them, turned his head against the chaff that the Mig dropped.

Missiles seems to be accurate or semi accurate by the fact that Zeus has given us, the Aim-7 was not very realiable thing and the R-27 has yet to have a recorded kill.

 

This test is not 100% accurate but is triying to be, I have to make the 30km/40km/50km mark, and complete it with the R530D

 

Thanks for reading! and sorry for my English as always!

Regards!

Edited December 12, 2015 by il_corleone

[jojo]

The problem with AIM-7 is what AIM-7 are you talking about ?

 

AIM-7E and early Sky Flash derivative had very short burn rocket engine (from Flight Global archives: Rocketdyne Mk38 Mod 4, single stage, 2.8s burn time). The F-4 Phantom fire control system was primitive and launch conditions were not very well known by pilots. So yes very low Pk.

 

AIM-7M is totally different (Hercules Mk 58 Mod 0, 2 stages Boos - Sustain burn, total 16s burn time), more sophisticated seeker and loft flight profile.

I think it has descent Pk.

[il_corleone]

The problem with AIM-7 is what AIM-7 are you talking about ?

 

AIM-7E and early Sky Flash derivative had very short burn rocket engine (from Flight Global archives: Rocketdyne Mk38 Mod 4, single stage, 2.8s burn time). The F-4 Phantom fire control system was primitive and launch conditions were not very well known by pilots. So yes very low Pk.

 

AIM-7M is totally different (Hercules Mk 58 Mod 0, 2 stages Boos - Sustain burn, total 16s burn time), more sophisticated seeker and loft flight profile.

I think it has descent Pk.

 

As I mentioned in my post above, is the Aim-7M, launched from the F15C. But thanks for the heads up, Im gonna test the burn time

[jojo]

I was reacting to this

the Aim-7 was not very realiable thing

 

AIM-7 made a bad reputation out of Vietnam, but AIM-7M has very little in common with Vietnam era AIM-7E.

 

That was my point. :smilewink:

[il_corleone]

I was reacting to this

 

 

AIM-7 made a bad reputation out of Vietnam, but AIM-7M has very little in common with Vietnam era AIM-7E.

 

That was my point. :smilewink:

 

Yep, I was referring to the info that Zeus gave us and the missile in-game (In comparation with the Aim120)

[*Rage*]

Sarh missiles in DCS are massively susceptible to chaff. I suspect the 530D will be no different given current modelling. I hope this will change in the near future. I believe its on Wags/ED to do list.

 

Fingers crossed!

[jojo]

Sarh missiles in DCS are massively susceptible to chaff. I suspect the 530D will be no different given current modelling. I hope this will change in the near future. I believe its on Wags/ED to do list.

 

Fingers crossed!

 

Yes, it seems ED screwed all BVR missiles :cry:

[il_corleone]

Confirmed, the Aim-7M in game has the 16s of Boost, but I noticed something strange, it was not exactly 16s but 15s, and later I realize that when launching the Aim-7 takes 1s to start the booster.

 

The sim recognizes the "booster" start the moment you launch it and not when their engines is on, is this the correct behaviour?

[il_corleone]

Completed the chart with strange behaviour

 

 

Ai always turns at 17-15 km. But stars shooting flares before, like being prepared to evade the missile

 

Ai always knows where is the missile

 

Ai always knows what kind of missile is shooting agasint them, (not same turns with Aim-7M than with R-27R)

 

Chaff looks less effective at that distance

 

Reaquiring the target also looks more common, it happened 4 or 5 times, the missile adquires chaff, 1s later gets the target again

 

Some missiles are "lured" at the mark of 10km to 5 km

[Zeus67]

IN other words, the AI cheats. Something that I was already aware of. Thanks for the time and the table.

[il_corleone]

IN other words, the AI cheats. Something that I was already aware of. Thanks for the time and the table.

 

No problem! your're welcome!

 

I hope it helped, and I think, about what you posted about the 530D, maybe the Chaff is too effective, but not only in your missile, in all SARH missile like other member posted, so is problem of ED.

 

I will complete the table with the 530D as soon as you guys release this beauty!

 

Regards!

[Zeus67]

I think that both chaff and flares are game balancers. From a gaming point of view, which is not the same as a simulation point of view, having very effective missiles and weak countermeasures is not desirable.

 

So, they nerf the missiles by weakening them and buff the countermeasures by strengthening their efficacy. So in a multiplayer environment when it is PvP, both sides will have roughly the same probabilities, even if in real life one would be at the mercy of the other.

 

War and combat has never been about giving your opponent a fair fight. Fair fights belong in the realm of sports, not combat. In combat you ambush, look for weaknesses and do whatever you have to, even kicking the gonads, for you to defeat your opponent at no cost for you because it is your life and health at stake.

[Corrigan]

If there are developers that think in that way, it's a shame. I don't think that's what most of us want from DCS. When I want symmetric and balanced competition instead of realism I play Counter-strike.

[Zeus67]

If there are developers that think in that way, it's a shame. I don't think that's what most of us want from DCS. When I want symmetric and balanced competition instead of realism I play Counter-strike.

 

I don't think that way, but there must be an explanation for the why both all missiles underperform and why all countermeasures are so effective.

[Ultra]

I don't think that way, but there must be an explanation for the why both all missiles underperform and why all countermeasures are so effective.

 

My guess is lack of info since a lot of the related metrics are classified.

[Slipp]

Good work!

 

This will be useful when Mirage comes out today. :joystick::music_whistling:

[*Rage*]

I don't think that way, but there must be an explanation for the why both all missiles underperform and why all countermeasures are so effective.

 

It wasnt always like this. Currently only SARH and IR missiles are rendered useless by countermeasures. This is the opposite of game balancing in my opinion. Although I don't think ED are doing it for balancing reasons.

[mjmorrow]

Wow! Interesting figures, Corleone. I don't have reliable figures, myself and I really appreciate all the effort that went into this chart. It sure is a fantastic thing to come up with all of this information. Thank you and much appreciated! I am sure that ED takes getting this stuff right very seriously and that they are intent upon modeling these missiles in such a way as to best represent their actual performance, given the information they have available. In any event, whatever the ultimate performance of the Super 530D and Magic II, we are going to have a fantastic time sim flying the Mirage 2000c, no doubt.

 

:thumbup: MJ

Edited December 15, 2015 by mjmorrow

[Ganesh]

I think that both chaff and flares are game balancers. From a gaming point of view, which is not the same as a simulation point of view, having very effective missiles and weak countermeasures is not desirable.

 

I remember that i´ve something similar heard/read about it and would understand this way to go. Even though i´m otherwise a fan of realistic behavior.

 

And NO, i have no expirience in Air to Air, only my expiriences as a mudmover with Iglas and SAM´s ;)

 

@ Il Corleone: Thank you for your efforts :thumbup:

Edited December 17, 2015 by Ganesh
Even though...